Author Topic: Why are silencers so evil? (Read 663 times)

luvmy45 · « **on:** December 20, 2011, 08:24:44 AM »

I've always wondered, what made silencers so evil that there needed to be such control placed on them. I hear that in other countries they sell them in drug stores for $5, and that in some countries they are required to have to even shoot a gun.

I've even heard that before they were placed under control in the US they were cheap and not a big deal. So what was it that happened in 1934 that the lawmakers decided that these were so bad they needed control, and that in 1986?? the punishment was a mandatory 30 year sentence for having a silencer in the use of a felony. (Not using a silencer, having one). What happened prior to 1986 that called for such punishment.?

I found this research paper, and to my limited research skill, seems to be the only such paper of it's kind, period.

http://wcr.sonoma.edu/v08n2/44.clark/clark.pdf

In short, nothing happened, ever to call for the increase in silencer legislation. In the last 10 years, there have been 5 murder cases where silencer were found with the criminal.. not used mind you, just found with and "assumed" to be used, although in one such case, that was later found to not be the case.

Anyway, it's a very good read, and answered a few questions... the answer to which is, our legislators are douche bags.

kel · « **Reply #1 on:** December 20, 2011, 01:44:59 PM »

Google around and see if you can find the old scans/transcriptions of the radio addresses from Attorney General Homer Cummings. I think they're hosted on the DOJ or Treasury's website. They don't provide a complete picture of things, but gives a peek at the zeitgeist that was going around those days when they started campaigning against "different classes" of guns.... the Lindberg kidnapping was capturing the national interest, the early mobsters were "what are we going to DO about these guys?" front page news, etc.-- all were making the public enemy #1 list and it was natural that kneejerk suggestions were going to come about because of the outcry.

It was pretty much the first time coppers of the day that barely carried billyclubs and revolvers were faced with bad guys with BARs and other military weaponry.

Personally, I don't think anyone should have a silencer.

(pause for effect)

I think they should have a few!

(bada bing!)

Kel

Grumblecakes · « **Reply #2 on:** December 20, 2011, 02:12:31 PM »

i think the reason they are not associated with alot of crime is because of their cost and the background checks that are done. Alot of violent gun crime is committed by people who either cannot pass a background check or cant afford to own a silencer. I think if they were easy to acquire they would show up more in crime, i dont think it would create more crime though. The background check does not seem unreasonable to me.

The tax however is a big factor in what keeps me from buying one. Even the cheaper ones you have to add 200 bucks to the price, you can end up spending more on the silencer than you did on the weapon its gonna go on.

luvmy45 · « **Reply #3 on:** December 20, 2011, 02:39:36 PM »

Grumblecakes,

BS... that entire statement is so false as to be offensive.

The research paper that I reference lays out the reasons why it is false thinking. If you have some facts that would back up that claim, please share the reference.

Bill, Idaho · « **Reply #4 on:** December 20, 2011, 03:27:32 PM »

I have wondered considering today's government agencies, such as the DEQ, AMA, OSHA, NIOSH, etc, with all of the concerns about hearing loss and noise pollution, I am surprised suppressors aren't required! In some cities (that still allow gasoline driven lawn mowers) you can be cited for not having a muffler on a damn lawn mower.

Grumblecakes · « **Reply #5 on:** December 20, 2011, 04:07:24 PM »

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953698000975

Studies have shown that poverty and previous termincomenext term are powerful predictors of homicide and violent previous termcrimenext term. We hypothesized that the effect of the growing gap between the rich and poor is mediated through an undermining of social cohesion, or social capital, and that decreased social capital is in turn associated with increased firearm homicide and violent previous termcrimenext term. Social capital was measured by the weighted responses to two items from the U.S. General Social Survey: the per capita density of membership in voluntary groups in each state; and the previous termlevelnext term of social trust, as gauged by the proportion of residents in each state who believed that “most people would take advantage of you if they got the chance”. Age-standardized firearm homicide rates for the years 1987–1991 and firearm robbery and assault incidence rates for years 1991–1994 were obtained for each of the 50 U.S. states. previous termIncomenext term inequality was strongly correlated with firearm violent previous termcrimenext term (firearm homicide, r=0.76) as well as the measures of social capital: per capita group membership (r=−0.40) and lack of social trust (r=0.73). In turn, both social trust (firearm homicide, r=0.83) and group membership (firearm homicide, r=−0.49) were associated with firearm violent previous termcrimenext term. These relationships held when controlling for poverty and a proxy variable for access to firearms. The profound effects of previous termincomenext term inequality and social capital, when controlling for other factors such as poverty and firearm availability, on firearm violent previous termcrime indicate that policies that address these broader, macro-social forces warrant serious consideration

http://www.datamasher.org/mash-ups/violent-crimepoverty-rate#table-tab

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DEC/Resources/Crime%26Inequality.pdf
The relationship between inequality and crime has also been the subject
of sociological theories on crime. Broadly speaking, these have developed
as interpretations of the observation that “with a degree of consistency which
is unusual in social sciences, lower-class people, and people living in lowerclass
areas, have higher official crime rates than other groups.”7 One of the
leading sociological paradigms on crime, the theory of “relative deprivation,”
states that inequality breeds social tensions as the less well-off feel dispossessed
when compared with wealthier people (see the work by Steven Stack
for a critical view).8 The feeling of disadvantage and unfairness leads the
poor to seek compensation and satisfaction by all means, including committing
crimes against both poor and rich.
It is difficult to distinguish empirically between

http://psych.mcmaster.ca/dalywilson/iiahr2001.pdf

while debtable by some there seems to be a pretty strong correlation between violent crime and poverty levels.

junkie · « **Reply #6 on:** December 20, 2011, 04:31:57 PM »

All that tells me is that rich people commit crimes differently. See Corzine. The first paragraph really did not make a lick of sense and is still not a good reason for the hassle of getting a silencer. In fact I find it so unreadable as to be just plain hogwash.

I am a bit grumpy right now

goodcomdeadcom · « **Reply #7 on:** December 20, 2011, 04:33:43 PM »

Greetings, and God bless.

Good question. They're not evil of course, merely demonized. I have a slightly related question: why are silencers so expensive? I don't really know if what goes into making them is the cause or not; I imagine that the producer, seller and buyer having to jump through all those fedgov hoops is a big factor, but Is it the only factor?

Thanks

luvmy45 · « **Reply #8 on:** December 20, 2011, 05:00:13 PM »

"Alot of violent gun crime is committed by people who either cannot pass a background check or cant afford to own a silencer."

That was the statement... if you can't afford a silencer, then how do people who can't afford to buy that, buy a gun that cost at least 2x at much?

If passing a background check and having money was the solution to gun crimes, the we should have solved this problem a long time ago, the laws that were made for people to pass a background check just made it harder for good people to get guns, criminal's don't buy guns legally.

Joey · « **Reply #9 on:** December 21, 2011, 09:16:59 AM »

Quote from: goodcomdeadcom on December 20, 2011, 04:33:43 PM

Greetings, and God bless.

I have a slightly related question: why are silencers so expensive? I don't really know if what goes into making them is the cause or not; I imagine that the producer, seller and buyer having to jump through all those fedgov hoops is a big factor, but Is it the only factor?

Thanks

In other countries, the Silencers are built to be disposable items. Use it till it gets loud, and throw it away.
In our country, the Silencer is built to last for 1000's upon 1000's of rounds. We build them that way, and therefore have to be built better than a disposable model.
That then drives up the cost of production.
But if you were paying a 200.00 transfer tax to own one, would you want to 100rd model - or the 30,000+rd model?

fastfire · « **Reply #10 on:** December 21, 2011, 09:51:00 AM »

Quote from: luvmy45 on December 20, 2011, 05:00:13 PM

"Alot of violent gun crime is committed by people who either cannot pass a background check or cant afford to own a silencer."

That was the statement... if you can't afford a silencer, then how do people who can't afford to buy that, buy a gun that cost at least 2x at much?

If passing a background check and having money was the solution to gun crimes, the we should have solved this problem a long time ago, the laws that were made for people to pass a background check just made it harder for good people to get guns, criminal's don't buy guns legally.

That's my thoughts!

luvmy45 · « **Reply #11 on:** December 21, 2011, 11:14:40 AM »

Quote from: kel on December 20, 2011, 01:44:59 PM

Google around and see if you can find the old scans/transcriptions of the radio addresses from Attorney General Homer Cummings. I think they're hosted on the DOJ or Treasury's website.
Kel

Holy crap! Which ones?

http://www.justice.gov/ag/aghistory/cummings/cummings-speeches.html

Thanks for the reference, this will take me a few days.

J Mack · « **Reply #12 on:** December 21, 2011, 01:01:11 PM »

Much of the credit for the existence of suppressors is owed to Hiram P. Maxim.

There have been many suppressor (or silencer) designers and years of research and development that have improved firearm suppressor technology but it is Hiram P. Maxim who developed and patented the first commercially produced suppressor.

Hiram P. Maxim was the son of United States born inventor, Hiram Stevens Maxim, who brought us the first portable fully automatic machine gun. Hiram P. Maxim, a mechanical engineer, graduated from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). He was a pioneer in ham radio technology and automobiles, and he worked in several other industries before he formed the Maxim Silencer Company in 1908. As an outdoorsman, a hunter, and target shooter, Maxim had an idea come to him as he was shooting near neighbors and was sensitive to their peace and quiet. Over years of development, Maxim developed a fairly effective silencer that was largely popular and sold commercially in local hardware stores for $3.25 per unit. Maxim coined the term “silencer” by including the word in the name of his business; however, there has never been such thing as a literal silencer. Firearms suppressors have been noted as sound suppressors, sound moderators, mufflers, silencers, and the slang term, “cans”.

After many cases involving gun silencers in criminal activity (such as poaching, mob crimes, and robberies), law enforcement agencies started looking at ways to ban silencers. At the same time, mobs were using machine guns and hand grenades in their escapades, which drew even more attention to the need to ban certain items. Then U.S. Attorney General, Homer S. Cummings, recognized that firearms could not be banned outright under the second amendment, so he proposed restrictive regulation in the form of an expensive tax and Federal registration. Short barreled rifles and short barrel shotguns were also regulated by this act of congress since the ability to easily conceal them made law enforcement agencies nervous.

In 1934, the National Firearms Act was approved and passed by congress, and the expensive tax of $200 was set on any legal purchase of the certain items listed in the bill. At that time, $200 was far more expensive than any item that was purchased, making it almost impossible for a citizen with an average income to acquire.

This act of congress (which many gun enthusiasts find aggravating) restricts the following: a shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches; a rifle having a barrel length less than sixteen inches; or any other weapon, other than a pistol or revolver, from which a shot is discharged by an explosive if such weapon is capable of being concealed on the person; or a machinegun. This act also restricts a muffler or silencer for any firearm, whether or not such a firearm is included in the foregoing definition. The NFA branch of the BATFE regulates the registration and restrictions of such items and classifies a silencer, suppressor, muffler, or moderator as a device that decreases the sound signature of a weapon.

LINK http://www.silencerco.com/?section=Education&page=History

kel · « **Reply #13 on:** December 21, 2011, 02:40:11 PM »

Quote from: luvmy45 on December 21, 2011, 11:14:40 AM

Holy crap! Which ones?

http://www.justice.gov/ag/aghistory/cummings/cummings-speeches.html

Thanks for the reference, this will take me a few days.

***Well, you won't find the "smoking gun" of "here's why I think silencers are bad" from Cummings, but just some of the vibe about banning/taxing "bad" weapons in the Crime addresses. But he's your guy that led the charge for gun control and said a lot of bad things back then that preceeded/pitched for the 1934 registration scheme.

Kel

emathey · « **Reply #14 on:** December 21, 2011, 02:52:39 PM »

Well, why you're here. Do you guys do barrel threading on site over in Eagle?

goodcomdeadcom · « **Reply #15 on:** December 21, 2011, 05:00:07 PM »

Greetings, and God bless.

Quote from: Joey on December 21, 2011, 09:16:59 AM

In other countries, the Silencers are built to be disposable items. Use it till it gets loud, and throw it away.
In our country, the Silencer is built to last for 1000's upon 1000's of rounds. We build them that way, and therefore have to be built better than a disposable model.
That then drives up the cost of production.
But if you were paying a 200.00 transfer tax to own one, would you want to 100rd model - or the 30,000+rd model?

Definitely the 30,000 round model. You get what you pay for, I guess (hopefully). And the workman is worthy of his hire.

Thanks, Joey

luvmy45 · « **Reply #16 on:** December 21, 2011, 06:22:28 PM »

Quote from: J Mack on December 21, 2011, 01:01:11 PM

After many cases involving gun silencers in criminal activity (such as poaching, mob crimes, and robberies), law enforcement agencies started looking at ways to ban silencers. At the same time, mobs were using machine guns and hand grenades in their escapades, which drew even more attention to the need to ban certain items. Then U.S. Attorney General, Homer S. Cummings, recognized that firearms could not be banned outright under the second amendment, so he proposed restrictive regulation in the form of an expensive tax and Federal registration. Short barreled rifles and short barrel shotguns were also regulated by this act of congress since the ability to easily conceal them made law enforcement agencies nervous.

This is what I'm asking about, this "report" that seems to be all over the place, almost the exact same wording on wiki, silencerco, and other places... it's backed up by.... NOTHING.

At least that I can find, anywhere... it's just taken for it's word at face value... it sounds right, all the gangster movies with Tommy guns, the St. Valentines day massacre and all... so the mob must have been really bad, so we need to limit the 2nd amendment rights because this is getting out of hand. Nobody has any data, that I can find, that this is actually the case.

In going thru some of Cummings radio interviews, I find almost this same statement, backed up with nothing. Nobody seems to be questioning it.

The paper I found, not that it's the holy grail of research on the matter, it's just the only one I've been able to find, and it proves that the use of silencers is almost non-existent in actual use of violent crime, especially in the use of a gun during a murder.

We seem to have an entire law written because of hearsay.

broncovan · « **Reply #17 on:** December 21, 2011, 06:33:13 PM »

Quote from: emathey on December 21, 2011, 02:52:39 PM

Well, why you're here. Do you guys do barrel threading on site over in Eagle?

To answer for him, yes.

They did my Rock River LAR-8. Very nice job, not the fastest around, but I figured that if I wanted a barrel threaded for a suppressor, who better than a suppressor manufacturer to do it.

emathey · « **Reply #18 on:** December 21, 2011, 09:54:01 PM »

That's okay, I still have a form 4 to wait on for a few months. I assume it's a, make appointment and drop off sort of arrangement?

e11charlie · « **Reply #19 on:** December 21, 2011, 11:06:20 PM »

Silencers are evil because they are well, silent. Much the same reason ninjas are evil, because they are silent. We dont like quiet things.

luvmy45 · « **Reply #20 on:** December 21, 2011, 11:12:19 PM »

"Silencers are evil because they are well, silent. Much the same reason ninjas are evil, because they are silent. We dont like quiet things."

The irony of this is, there are laws about running a lawn mower without a muffler, or a car for that matter, because they make too much noise. OHSA has rules about noise pollution for work and entertainment, we have all sort of regulations about how loud a freeway can be next to a residential area and cost city's millions of dollars to erect sound barriers...

But a gun that is too loud to shoot without hearing protection, is too loud for residential neighborhoods, and scares animals away in the woods... is not worthy of some sort of "silencer" because that would be bad?

?

Great logic here.

Evergreen · « **Reply #21 on:** December 22, 2011, 12:11:11 PM »

I always wondered what would happen in court if you used a suppressor in a defense shoot outside of your home. Do you think they would make a claim that the person was bloodthirsty or an assassin-wannabe because he was carrying it with him? I know it sounds silly, but I just wonder how the anti-2A courts would react if one of these were used. Has there been any documented cases of people using suppressors in a defense shoot and facing any legal repercussions for doing so? I'm just curious. Personally, if I could, I wouldn't mind suppressing every gun I owned; that is, in a perfect world. The legals concern I have are somewhat an offshoot of other horror stories I have heard of people being locked up or prosecuted for using 10mm/44mag or other calibers/accessories deemed "evil" by the courts.

Shade OGrey · « **Reply #22 on:** December 22, 2011, 12:29:40 PM »

I think it is safe to presume that a prosecutor/claimants attorney can and will make everything you have done, said, worn, sound evil and bloodthirsty.
Not every prosecutor of course, but as a general rule of thumb, and no doubt will vary by the states general redness.
That is, after all is said and done, the job of a prosecutor and a claimants representative.

luvmy45 · « **Reply #23 on:** December 22, 2011, 01:48:03 PM »

Quote from: Evergreen on December 22, 2011, 12:11:11 PM

I always wondered what would happen in court if you used a suppressor in a defense shoot outside of your home. Do you think they would make a claim that the person was bloodthirsty or an assassin-wannabe because he was carrying it with him?

Yes they would... the biggest question would be, why are you carrying a suppressed firearm, they ain't easy to conceal, and walking around with one isn't easy.

So to it stretches the realm of reality why you would carry a suppressed gun for self defense.

Farlo · « **Reply #24 on:** December 23, 2011, 10:22:14 AM »

I don't believe lack of suppressor use in crime in the country has a thing to do with the NFA or any other restriction. I suggest it has more to do with lack of demand than cost or threat of incarceration. A functional, disposable suppressor really isn't all that hard to make. If there was a demand for them there would be 'suppressor labs' and people walking them across our porous borders. Any half-way dedicated Joe Criminal could cook something up with relatively easy to acquire tools.

But why? As others have pointed out, suppressors make a weapon more cumbersome to carry and conceal. On top of that, they don't really silence a weapon unless you're using subsonic ammunition. I'd guess the average 'impoverished' criminal doesn't want the hassle and doesn't care if the gun he has makes noise or damages his hearing. Anyone else who knows enough about suppressors to use one effectively isn't going to be much deterred by the law if they really want to use one.